HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SATISH CHANDER SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant was allotted a plot measuring 300 sq. mtrs. which was subsequently, on the complainant's request, increased to 550.75 sq. mtrs. But at the time of giving Possession Certificate on 16.8.1993 it was found that the area of the plot was 521.86 sq. mtrs. When the complainant wanted to raise the construction and approached the petitioner for physical possession he was issued a Possession Letter showing the plot of 307 sq. mtrs. stating that this was as per revised plan which had come into existence from 12.5.1994. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties directed the petitioner to allot the plot of the entire area as was allotted earlier. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed which was dismissed by the State Commission-hence this Revision Petition.

(2.) WE heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record and find that there is no dispute to the fact that it was the petitioner who had allotted a plot of 300 sq. mtrs., the area of which was subsequently increased and payment for increased area was also received by them. It is only at the time of the physical possession it was reduced to 307 sq. mtrs. on the ground that it is as per the revised plan. The plot's area was triangular shape and could not be found of any other use. In our view both the lower Forums are correct and justified in directing the petitioner to allot the original area to the complainant as they had received the payment and this plot cannot be allotted to any one else. There are concurrent findings on this issue by both the lower Forums. WE find no ground to interfere in the order of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission. This Revision Petition has no merit and is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.